3 ms·

There is lots of speech I dislike and don't support, but I don't oppress speakers or advocate for their oppression because I don't want people oppressing me whe

There is lots of speech I dislike and don't support, but I don't oppress speakers or advocate for their oppression because I don't want people oppressing me when the tide turns. Supporting free speech is not the same as supporting the content of the speech. Also worth pointing out that Harvard receives a lot of public dollars, so it's not the canonical private institution. Remember when everyone freaked out that the salvation army wouldn't employ openly gay preachers (but would employ homosexually in any other role) because though they were a private entity, they received NYC tax dollars, and then everyone freaked out when the SA announced that they would decline those tax dollars and reduce the scope of their work in the city accordingly?

eropple 9y ago
Private organizations going "nah, we don't want you here, get out" isn't oppression. Your right to free speech doesn't supersede my right to free association.
- weberc2 9y ago
  Yours is the argument posed by employers who posted "Blacks need not apply" adverts. Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on? Anyway, by "oppression", I was referring to the OPs implicit suggestion that were prohibit unpopular speech, which is oppression.
  - eropple 9y ago
    Race is a protected class where we as a society have explicitly decided that there are societal benefits to overriding free association in the course of the transaction public business (emphasis on public, both in the governmental and the "running a business" sense of the term). "Racist jerk" is not a protected class. So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originators abandoned it. (They never really liked it anyway.)
    - weberc2 9y ago
      Race wasn't protected in the fifties either, and yet few would argue that it only became oppressive when the laws were changed. Those who would support your argument are the very same you would evict from your holy hill!
      - eropple 9y ago
        If racist jerks end up actually oppressed instead of having to deal with the consequences of their very specific and very active choices (which stand in stark contrast to the genetic/external-social of "race"), I am entirely and one hundred percent onboard with having a conversation about whether society is made better by considering them a protected class. I will not hold my breath on either the likelihood of that oppression nor on whether society is made better by enabling them. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just whatabouting?
        weberc2 9y ago
        I gave my argument, you responded to it with an incorrect nitpick, I corrected you, you tried to dig your way out, and here we are now.
Frondo 9y ago
I'm not out passing any laws banning racist shit, but it sounds like you're saying I can't even get it out of my life if I want to. Again, how did we get here??
- weberc2 9y ago
  Why does it sound like that to you? I'm all for freedom of association, I just don't think we should suggest that entities which don't prohibit offensive speech (E.g., the government) are necessarily supporting it.

eropple 9y ago

Private organizations going "nah, we don't want you here, get out" isn't oppression. Your right to free speech doesn't supersede my right to free association.

weberc2 9y ago
Yours is the argument posed by employers who posted "Blacks need not apply" adverts. Are you sure that's the hill you want to die on? Anyway, by "oppression", I was referring to the OPs implicit suggestion that were prohibit unpopular speech, which is oppression.
- eropple 9y ago
  Race is a protected class where we as a society have explicitly decided that there are societal benefits to overriding free association in the course of the transaction public business (emphasis on public, both in the governmental and the "running a business" sense of the term). "Racist jerk" is not a protected class. So, yes, I'm quite comfortable with this hill. It has a nice shining city on it. Shame its originators abandoned it. (They never really liked it anyway.)
  - weberc2 9y ago
    Race wasn't protected in the fifties either, and yet few would argue that it only became oppressive when the laws were changed. Those who would support your argument are the very same you would evict from your holy hill!
    - eropple 9y ago
      If racist jerks end up actually oppressed instead of having to deal with the consequences of their very specific and very active choices (which stand in stark contrast to the genetic/external-social of "race"), I am entirely and one hundred percent onboard with having a conversation about whether society is made better by considering them a protected class. I will not hold my breath on either the likelihood of that oppression nor on whether society is made better by enabling them. Do you have an actual argument, or are you just whatabouting?
      - weberc2 9y ago
        I gave my argument, you responded to it with an incorrect nitpick, I corrected you, you tried to dig your way out, and here we are now.

Frondo 9y ago

I'm not out passing any laws banning racist shit, but it sounds like you're saying I can't even get it out of my life if I want to. Again, how did we get here??

weberc2 9y ago
Why does it sound like that to you? I'm all for freedom of association, I just don't think we should suggest that entities which don't prohibit offensive speech (E.g., the government) are necessarily supporting it.